Treece v. United States
2010 U.S. Claims LEXIS 890
Fed. Cl.2010Background
- Charles Allen Treeee (Treeee) is a prisoner incarcerated since 1994.
- Treeee turned 65 on February 12, 2003, reaching age-eligibility for Social Security retirement benefits but did not receive them.
- SSA denied benefits due to incarceration, and Treeee appealed; SSA reiterated in a 2004 letter that incarceration bars benefits.
- Treeee has filed numerous federal court actions seeking SSA benefits, with various related complaints and prior related decisions.
- Plaintiff seeks back pay from April 2003, damages for emotional distress, costs for wrongful seizure, equitable relief, and a preliminary injunction, among other relief.
- Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and declines to transfer the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s social security benefit claim. | Treeee contends a Tucker Act basis exists for relief. | Def.’s Mot. argues CFC lacks jurisdiction over SSA benefits claims. | No jurisdiction; SSA benefits claims are exclusive to district courts. |
| Whether constitutional claims are money-mandating and within jurisdiction. | Treeee asserts various constitutional rights violations. | Most constitutional claims are not money-mandating and outside CFC reach. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction except for Takings not applicable here; most claims not money-mandating. |
| Whether tort claims fall within the Court of Federal Claims. | Treeee asserts fraud and emotional distress claims. | Tort claims fall outside CFC jurisdiction. | Dismissed; Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims. |
| Whether equitable relief may be awarded ancillary to monetary relief. | Treeee seeks equitable relief and a preliminary injunction. | Equitable relief requires jurisdiction over money damages. | Denied; no jurisdiction over underlying monetary SSA claim. |
| Whether transfer to another court is appropriate. | Not explicitly requested; transfer could aid convenience. | Transfer not appropriate given district courts’ parallel denial of SSA relief. | Transfer not appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (SSA benefits claims fall outside Court of Federal Claims; exclusive district court jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g))
- Addams-More v. United States, 81 Fed.Cl. 312 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Court lacks jurisdiction over SSA benefit claims under Tucker Act)
- Tasby v. United States, 91 Fed.Cl. 344 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (money-mandating requirement for constitutional claims in the CFC)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Takings claims limited by money-mandating source; SSA benefits not within CFC)
- Mitchell v. United States, 463 U.S. 206 (Supreme Court 1983) (Tucker Act requires money-munding source for suit against United States)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Due process and other provisions not money-mandating)
- Hahnford v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Some constitutional claims not money-mandating)
- Skillo v. United States, 68 Fed.Cl. 734 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Fraud claims are torts and outside CFC jurisdiction)